The Sun. — London, England, 1836-06-29 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE S. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Mr., 13ARING presrmted a petition relative to Dover liar bcur,. 'which was referred to the Committee. BRIGHTON RAILWAY. Lord G LEY,NOX presented a petition from the inhabi tants of Brunswick-square and Brunswick-terrace, in favour of Stevenson's .r_irighton Line. Lord SLT R.REY presented a petition to the same elect. LEEDS . AND SELBY RAILWAY. Sir J. BECKETT moved that the House do agree to the LOrds' Amendments to the Leeds and Selby Railway; but there was one of the Amendments to which he could not assent. He would move that a list of the tolls to be taken shoul-a-L-.-, exhibited or the Railway.—Agreed to, A Committee was then appointed to draw up reasons for dissenting from their Lordship& Amendments, and a Confe rence was requested. Sir W. GEARY presented a petition against the Black heath Small Debts Bill. On the motion. of Mr. BARNARD, the Blackheath Small Debts Bill was read a third time and passed. MANCHESTER AND SALFORD CANAL. On the 'motion of Mr. BR OT H E RT ON, the Lords' amend ments to - the Manchester and Salford Canal Bill were agreed to. BRIGHTON RAILROAD. M. GORING presented a petition from Worthing, signed by tkirec hundred and thirty electors, in favour of Stevenson's lint: of railroad; and similar petitions from Shoreham and Cinevening, very numerously signed. Mr. HUR ST presented a petition to the same effect from Horsham and various other places. Mr. DENISON presented similar petitions from Dorki'.4 and from Leatherhead. Mr. KEMP presented a petition, signed by 760 of th,., prin cipal, inhabitants of Lewes, in favour of Sir John iZonnie's lino., and against Stevenson's line. DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY. Mr. ALSTON, in the absence of the Noble Lord; the Member for Liverpool, moved thrAt the Lords' Amendments in this Bill be agreed to. —A,gree6. to. BLACKWALL RAILWAY. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented two petitions against this railway—one was from the owners of property, and the others from the owners of coaches plying on the road. STF,PHENSON'S BRIGHTON RAILWAY. - - Mr. ergeant GOULBURN p resen t e d a petition against Stephenson's Brighton Railway. CHURCH RATES. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition, signed by the mayor, and between 400 and 500 of the principal inhabitants of Truro, praying the entire abolition of the church rate. Mr. Tooke said, that as it appeared from an intimation recently given by the Noble Home Secretary, that there was no intention on the part of Government to originate any measure on that subject during this Session, he took this opportunity of expressing his regret at such determination, and indeed after the declarations made by the professing friends of the Dissenters, he must add that he Was surprised, he was ashamed, that at this conclud ing pefiod of the second Session of a second Reformed Parlirment, not a single particle of legislative relief had yet been completed in their favour. Warmly attached to the church of England himself, he considered it discreditable to that establishment—to its influential representatives--that they had nut long since made a voluntary surrender of the claurch rate, as a debt of justice to their dissenting fellow Christians. But odious and oppressive as was this rate in his view of it, he would rather see it continued in all its defor mity, than consent to the adoption of the paltry expedient sug gested in the last Parliament of charging the church-rate on the land tax, or on the co-Jsolidated fund—thus with more fla grant injustice, becausr4 indirectly, universally, and without redress, compelling tie Dissenter to contribute to the repairs and ornaments of a church which be disclaimed. AN DIEMEN'S LAND. Mr. MORC H kN JOHN O'CONNELL presented three petitions fron t this colony, one from a Mr. Melvile, of Hobart Town, comphining of an unjust sentence passed on him for an alleged contempt of Court. Another petition from the in habitaw.s of Hobart Town, praying the attention of the House to the, preceding case ; and a third from Mr. Bryan, formerly of Clenore, Van Diemen's Land, complaining of the conduct of the Governor, and praying for trial by Jury. Sir G. GREY said with respect to the case of Mr. Bryan he had been removed from the Commission of the Peace, and be believed the Governor was fully justified in doing so. The Governor would shortly be in England, when an opportunity would be afforded the Hon. Member of again bringing the case before the House. Mr. ROEBUCK begged to ask whether any objection would be made to the production of the despatches of Lord Aylmer to Mr. Stanley, for which the Noble Lord, the Mem ber for Devonshire, had moved? Sir G. GREY said—With respect to the question put to him by the Hon. Member for Bath, relative to the de spatches that had been moved for, he believed that, from the moment the charges had been made, Lord Aylmer Lad done every thing in his power to meet them. If the despatches were considered necessary, he would have no objec tion to their production. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL also presented a similar petition from a gentleman named Melville, of Hobart's Town, Van Diemen's Land, complaining of the sentence passed upon him for an alleged contempt of Court. Also a petition from the free inhabitants of Hobart's Town, praying the House to take the case of Mr. Melville into their serious consideration. Sir GEORGE GREY said, the law offices of the Colony had been averse to the removal of the petitioner, and the Go vernment here had ordered him to be reinstated. Mr. O'CONNELL hoped that as the system of interroga tories was discountenanced in every other part of the country except the one he was connected with, he would never hear of it again : it was a most iniquitous and inquisitorial proceeding. Sir WILLIAM BR ABA ZON presented petitions from Mayo and several parishes in the same county, against the Lords' amendments, and praying for the abolition of tithes. Mr. R. D. BRO WNE supported the prayer of the petitions. CHURCH RATES. Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from Barn staple, from persons calling themselves Protestant Dissenters, against Church -rates, whether levied directly or indirectly. ABOLITION OF TITHES. Mr. BROWNE presented a petition from the county of Mayo, praying for the total abolition of tithes. The Hon. Member bad also a petition to pre-ient from an individual of the name of John Byrne, of Mayo, complaining of im proper conduct on the part of a. Magistrate. The prisoner complained that whilst he was engaged in his lawful oc pation, by which he procured the means of subsistence, he was illegally arrested and imprisoned. Colonel PERCE VAI. said that this was a petition from an individual calling 'thmself a native of Mayo, whereas he was an itinerant br.tlad singer of Mill-street, Dublin.—( A laugh.) He bror.ght a most grave charge against a Magis trate, with who .11 he (Col. Perceval) had been acquainted for 30 years, and who was wholly incapable of the conduct imputed to ) .tira.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The facts were these :--This gentleman (Mr. Cuff) went after the last election, cin the 16th of May, to Ballinrobe, where he found a crowd collected, and this ballad-singer in the midst of them, singing, treasonable ballads of a political character. Mr. Cuff cautioned the man against this conduct, and told him that if be found him pursuing a similar course, he would com mit him. The man persevered, and Mr. Cuff, in what he considered the discharge of his duty, had the man arrested. After this explanation he trusted the Hon. Member for Mayo would withdraw his petition. Mr. HUME wished to know whetlier the ballads to which the Gallant Colonel had referred, were of this description, " Put your trust in God my 13 0‘;'s, and keep your powder dry." —( Great cheering and laughter.) Col. PERCE VAL rose with some warmth. The Hon. Member for Middlesex seemed to think the whole sum and substance of treason consisted in the words he had just used. —( Cheers from the Opposition.) He thought those words well worthy every Protestant in Ireland.—(Cheers.) Mr. BR - OWN E was not surprised that the Hon. and Gal lant Colonel should come forward to defend the conduct of a Magistrate when it was considered he was acting from politi cal motives.—( Cheers, and cries of " Order I ") The SPEAKER thought the Hon. Member was out of order. Mr. BROWNE would bow to the decision of the Chai e . All that he was anxious for was, that the subject sho'Aid be called to the attention of his Majesty's Government, Mr. Sergeant JACKSON protested against the time of the House being oce , :tpied with discussions of this nature.—( Loud cries of Oh, oh, 1). The man if he chose might bring his ac tion. —( Oh , oh and laughter. ) Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY would ever be the advocate of every British subject who sent a petition to that House.-_ (Cheers.) The man had been found guilty of singing bal lads of a treasonable nature ; but why among the papers which the Hon. and Gallant Colonel had had sent to him was there not one of these ballads? The who gist of the question lay upon whether the ballad wm treasonable or not? If it was, why was not the House of Commons to judge of it; if it was not, why was the s'..an to be deprived of his liberty ? (Hear, hear.) Mr. C. W. W`; NN wished to know why they were to judge whether ',h e ballad was treasonable or not.—( Loud cries of " Hear, 'near," from the Conservatives.) They were not Judges. Th e C onst i tut i on o f t h e country h a d provided Judge! and Courts of Justice for remedying those cases. He did not know an evil so great, and so growing at tire present time, as a disposition to pass by the regular tribunals, which the laws of the Constitution had pro vided, in order to bring cases before the House which it could not, whi c h it oug ht not , to a tt em pt t o investigate.—(Renewed crifs of " Hear, hear," from the C'unservatives.) Mr. R. D. BROWNE ;use amidst loud cries of" Spoke, spoke," and " Shiel, S h i e l . ) He had been asked a question by the Hon. Mr:, n b et (the Gallant Colonel opposite), and he had to ans . 4 er that on the receipt of the petition he had coia munitisted with the Attorney-General for Ireland, who Ri f:armed him that no difficulty would be thrown in the way. Mr. SHE IL being again called on, said he thought enough had al rea d y b een sa id upon t h e su bj ec t. E nou gh of time had been taken up in the presentatien of petitions, especially as the i Hon. and Learned Sergeant opposite (Jackson) had an m- Port'int one to present from a Catholic Clergyman. He c ould not, however, allow the present opportunity to pass, with out sa yi ng a f ew wor d s upon the subject of' the ballads which had been referred to. He had bad the pleasure of hearing a ballad read in another place with much the same emphasis as had been done by a Noble Lord in that House. He must say, with reference to the " Put your trust in God, my boys," that if one party were allowed to appeal to the passions of their followers, it would be hard to say that the other party ought not to be excused by having recourse to the same means. Mr. SHAW said that his Hon. and Gallant Friend had be m misunderstood. What he had state 1 was, that Mr. Cuff imprisoned this man because he apprehended a breach of the peace and a riot. The Hon. and Learned Member for Tip perary should show, before he called upon the House to en quire into this grievance, that it was without remedy in the courts of law. Colonel PERCEVAL explained, and after a few Word's from Sir W. BIZABAZON, the petition was laid on the table. NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY. On the motion of 13ECKETT, a Conference was appointed to On held with the House of Lords on the subject of Mr_ kinendments made in this Bill, and Sir J. BECKS; r Awl several others were appointed to manage it .; • reported that Sir J. BECKET appeared at thc: '„ar, 'awl Ps. - in Conference, a n d l e ft th e i r they had met their Lordshi reasons with them, LONDON AND BLACKWALL COMMERCIAL RAILWAY,. On the motion that the amendments be engrossed, Mr. CRAWFORD said he came down to move that the further consideration of the report be postponed till that day six months. He thought the Bill would be most injurious tr.! the public interest, and that none of the pros,pects hel'd 'sit by it would be realized. Sir J. RAE RE ID oprck tie tll 'tFbtl. Mr. P. STEW ART deferAed e Bill. There were four divisions in the Committee ) hti in favour of the Bill, the latter of which was tarried 1,1 a majority of 13. In hip (Tit'thn it was for tJ',6 genid ht the commercial world that ttl 'Bill should pass. Ilk struggle was between th.t East and West India Docks e ior the purpose of beim; pit on an equal footing with the St. Katherine Dor,k, and the Hon. Member who had trrade the motion. Was a great proprietor of those Docks. Mr. CRAWFORD repudiated altogether the reason as signed by the Honourable Member for his conduct. There teas no foundation for it, as, in point of fact, there was no competition existing as that which the Honourable Member would lead the House to believe. The answer to the imputation of the Hon. Gentleman was conclusive— namely, that out of seven Members immediately interested, six had concurred with him in the view he took of the question. This, he hoped, was a sufficient answer to the im putations that were cast upon him. Mr. P. STEWART did not mean to cast any imputation on the Hon. Member. Mr. CLAY supported the amendment. Sir E. CODRINGTON rose amid cries of" Question." The lion. Baronet was understood to say that so far as his observation went the present means of communication were decidedly deficient. Mr. THOS. DUNCOMBE supported the motion. The Bill was calculated to afford very decided benefit to the mer cantile arid commercial interests. In his opinion, Parlia ment had never given its sanction to a more important or useful measure. —( Question.) Mr. CRAWFORD, seeing the sense of the House against him, would withdraw his amendment. The motion was then agreed to. LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY. Mr. HUME presented a petition, signed by 7,300 inhabi• tants of Middlesex, praying that the House would not consent to any line of railway between London and Brighton, unless one that was constructed without a tunnel. Mr. E. TENNE NT complained, that Mr. Cundy's line had not been fairly dealt with, and presented a petition in its favour. After a short conversation, Lord G. LENNOX moved that the Report of the Com mittee of the London and Brighton Railway be now agreed to. Captain AL SAG ER contended for the superiority of Sir J. Rennie's line. The advantages of this line over the others were very considerable. The line before the House would be no advantage to the inhabitants of Brighton, as it stopped outside the town, whilst Sir J. Rennie's went direct to the town. There was another advantage in favour of Sir J. Ren nie's line, namely, that its terminus was at London Bridge, where it appeared nineteen out of every twenty tons of the commerce of the line would be carried from. The terminus of Mr. Stephenson's line was at Limehouse. The distance by Sir J. Rennie's line was forty-five miles, whilst that by Stephenson's line was fifty-five miles, making a saving in car riage of goods of several miles, which would be a very im portant advantage to the public. After contending in favour of the superiority of Sir J. Rennie's line, the Hon. Member concluded by moving that the Report be received that day six months. Captain PE CHELL said that the House were now called upon to adopt a. Report which would inflict the most lasting injury upon the inhabitants of Brighton. There never had been such a Report laid on the table of the House. Evidence had been suppressed in favour of Mr. Stephenson's line. As to the recommittal of the Bill, he objected to it. The safest course would be to reject the Report altogether, and he there fore would give his support to the motion that the Report be read that day six months. Lord G. LENNOX defended the Report. He trusted that the House would consent to his wishes, and that they would not be prevailed upon to upset the decisions of a Com mittee which had sat for fifty-three days—which had had the advantage of the assistance of twenty-three Learned Counsel —(A laugh)—and before whom no less than 195 witnesses had been examined. Mr. DENISON supported the motion of the Noble Lord. There were fewer tunnels on Stephenson's line than on Sir John Rennie's. He should therefore support his line. Mr. KEMP believed the unanimous opinion of the inhabi tants of Brighton to be against Mr. Stephenson's line, and in favour of Sir J. Rennie's. He should, therefore, vote for the amendment. Mr. WIGNEY should support the amendment. Lord STANLEY agreed with the Committee. Mr. C URTE IS said that many gentlemen supported Mr. Stephenson's line, who, on account of the locality of their property, were more interested in it than Sir John Rennie's. He did not mean to impute any improper motive to those Hon. Members, but it made the opinion of such a committee very unsatisfactory. There was another reason for not agree ing to the report, vit., that since the report was made, the South Eastern Bill had received the Royal assent ; and that Bill made a railway to Brighton fox twenty miles of the way, giving it also a direct communication with the line to Dover. As for the remark that Stephenson's line had less tunnelling than Sir John Rennie's, that was a very tender point,—for Mr. Cundy's line had no tunnels at all, and he said, only wait till next session, and I shall be able to bring before the House a line two miles shorter than Stephenson's, and without any tunnel.—(Hear.) After some further conversation, to which the House lis tened very impatiently, Mr. Jephson, Major Curteis, and Sir E. Codrington, supporting the amendment ; and Mr. Borth wick and Mr. C. Barclay, the original motion,—the Gallery was cleared for a division; when there appeared— For the Original Motion For the Amendment 6l Majority in favour of Stephenson's line —4O On our return to the gallery a conversation was being car ried on between Mr. J. Jervis, Mr. Curteis, Lord G. Lennox, Mr. Borthwick, and other Hon. Members, with reference to the latter Hon. Member's alleged non-attendance in the com mittee on the Brighton Railroad Bills. The Hon. Member explained, and it appeared that the matter had arisen out of a misapprehension of the terms of a statement before made by the Hon. Member on the subject. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord J. RUSSELL then moved, pursuant to notice, that the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Bills for the Registration of Marriages and Births, take precedence of motions this evening. Mr. HUME although he was anxious to afford every fa-. cility to the progress of important Bills, yet' h a d a mot i on of the utmost importance to bring forward on the subject of India. He would be very ready to give way to the Noble Lord if he would appoint another day—next Tuesday, for instance. Lord J. RUSSELL would have no objection to fix on that day for the Hon. Gentleman's motion. Mr. PLUMPTRF had a motion first on the list, and could not be hound by the agreement of the Hon. Member for Middlesex. Mr. HUME—As the Hon. Member had precedence on the present occasion, would also take precedence on Tues day next. Mr. MAXWELL had a most important motion on the paper, on the subject of hand-loom weaving ; and although he was desirous of affording every facility to the Noble Lord, he could not consent to sacrifice important interests. Would the Noble Lord allow him (Mr. Maxwell) to bring in the Bill with respect to which he had given notice? Lord J. RUSSELL personally had no objection to the Hon. Member introducing the Bill without any prefatory statement; but at the same time it must be remembered that the Hon. Member, from the position his notice occupied on the paper, would have had very little chance of bringing it on. He hoped, therefore, the Hon. Member would not persist. Mr. hl A XNV EL I, should, if opposed, be compelled to persist.—(Divide, divide.) The Hon. Member then moved as an amendment that leave be given to bring in a Bill to give publicity to the prices of hand-loom weaving. The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took place. On our return we found Sir R. PEEL addressing the House. He contended that the Hon. Member had a perfect right to insist upon his pre cedence. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Hon. Member would have had very little chance of bringing on his motion to-night, from its position on the paper. Sir R. PEEL said the rule of the House was perfectly clear, and it was that which he sought to maintain. As to the Bill of the Hon. Gentleman, he (Sir R. Peel) would in all probability be opposed to it. Mr. A. TREVOR supported the motion. Sir J. HOBHOUSE was, not in a condition then to call on the House to accede. After some conversation, leave was given to Mr. MAX WELL to bring in his Bill to give publicity to the prices of hand-loom labour. Mr. POULTER introduced his motion that the House meet on Thursday, at twelve o'clock. Sir J. GRAHAM opposed the motion. Mr. POULTER should press the motion. After a few words from Mr. PEASE, Mr. WY NN, and Mr. BROTHERTON, against the motion, the House divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Alajority REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS BILL. On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, that the Bill be read a third time. Mr. G 0 ULBURN had certain amendments to propose. He did not object to the principle of the Bill, for he was most willing to afford the Dissenters relief from their real grievants. He wished for a general registration of births; but this feeling did not deter him from pressing on the House 43 THE SUN, LON DOA, WE the effect of interfering with the kites VA.A . T.lanies of the Church of England, 1-te. th.t 'not onlY on the birth of the child the antonneetnent Of tte fact ~- s bonid.,bc,gi'.:up to the registrar, but that his hYteiided name ;rich The name of the 'Child Mtv‘ ; l o sou , Serted with the te,criti'y baptl,;th, and not left to the liability of after chang e . 'The Ltw of the land, as well as the law of the Church, demands that baptism should be public. It was for these reasons that he mneca tne following - amendment : " That in the 19th ,;taugs, line 5, p. 7, after the word ' child,' ' the be Inserted ' save and ey.cept the name of the child." I s , i o r r d R J . . R . I. ; N S G S E L s l 4 contended thought th e thatm amendment m t heen commont un nec prin ciple es s a of toleration the existing privileges of the Church should be confirmed to it. After a remark from Mr. EWA RT, which did not reach us, Dr. BOWRING gave it as his opinion that the Bill was statistical, and that marriage was only A civil hultitutlon. Mr. A. TREVOR hoped the Arlitttdrnent would be pressed to a divition: Pt: I.,UARiNGTON did not think that Churchmen re 'qUiPool the proposed alteration. Sir R. PEEL considered it was an universAlly-fceeivcd opinion that naming, the t NOntial part of bap tism, and he thgright that allowing the ceremony to be per formed t. , . 4 .tt1011t it would be tantamount to a tacit condemna7 ttm‘i and abolition of the ceremony of baptism.--( Hear, hear.) He should, therefore, sire his cordial assent to the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend. . The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment Against the amendment 9 7 'Majority —24 On the question that this Bill do pass being put from the Chair, Sir R. PEEL begged to call the attention of the Noble Lord opposite to the case of parish clerks, as they would be affected by it. The situations of these individuals were free holds, often purchased. The greater part of their income and emoluments was derived from fees on births and marriages. In one northern parish he had a statement that the income of the parish clerk was 751. a year, of which 62/. Bs. was de rived entirely from fees on the registration of births and mar riages. The Bill abolished these altogether ; and thus did an injustice and an injury to this class of persons. Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that there were difficulties in the way of coming to any decision on the subject. However, if hereafter Parliament should find that these per sons were sufferers by its injustice he should not oppose afford ing them redress. Sir R. H. INGLIS and Mr. G. F. YOUNG severally bore testimony to the hardship of the case of the parish clerks, and the injustice about to be inflicted on them. Lord F. EGERTON called the attention of the Noble Lord to another case of hardship, in connection rather with the Marriage Bill than with the Bill before the House. (lie was understood to say the Chaplains of parochial Cures.) He had in his hand a letter from a clergyman of that description in Manchester, who stated that his income would be greatly reduced by the Marriage Bill. Lord J. RUSSELL was inaudible in reply. After a few words from Mr. RUSHBROOKE and Mr. POTTER, the Bill was passed. REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGES. On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the Registration of Marriages Bill was read a third time. Several clauses, as amended, were added to the Bill. On the question that this Bill do pass being put, Mr. LAW begged to call the attention of the House to a clause in the original Bill, in connection with one of the new clauses about to be added to it. The first of these clauses referred to the solemnization of marriage ; the second to the place in which it was to be solemnized. And the question on which he sought to be satisfied was whether on the construc tion of these clauses, taken in connection a charge of bigamy, or, more properly speaking, polygamy, might not be sus tained against parties marrying under the provisions of the Bill. _ _ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL declared it to be his opinion that a marriage contracted under the Bill was solemn and binding in every point of view, and that a second mar riage similarly contracted, in defiance of the first, must be an act of bigamy, and be punishable as such. The clause was then agreed to. Mr. GO ULBURN then proposed the clause of which he had given notice. He proposed that it should be enacted that when notice should be given to the Register (appointed to attend in any registered building provided under the Act), by parties who wish to enter into a contract of matrimony, that the parties so requiring permission to be married should make a solemn declaration that they have a conscientious scruple to be married according to the religious ceremonies of the Church of England. He did not intend to interfere in any way with the scruples of Dissenters. Dr. LUSHINGTON opposed the clause, as calculated to defeat the main object of the Bill, which was to give equal rights and pririleges to Dissenters and to members of the Church of England. Dissenters had a right to marry with out inquisitorial inquiry into their religious opinions in refe rence to that compact, or being obliged to unfold them at such a time for the gratification of Legislators. Sir R. INGLIS said the present clause was framed in a spirit of protection for the members of the Church of Eng land alone, and did not in the least restrict the privileges con ceded to Dissenters. Mr. BAINES was astonished and shocked to hear that he should find such a passage in the original Bill. If no one else could be found he would move that it should be ex punged, and he would divide the House on it. He would rather vote against the whole Bill than accept it with such a noxious clause as that now proposed in a similar spirit. Lord J. RUSSELL agreed that the introduction of the proposed clause would have a very prejudicial effect on the character of the Bill, and would lessen its value in the eyes of Dissenters. He would prefer restoring the Bill to its original_ state rather than consent to introduce the clause proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. LAW said that, as legislators, they were bound not to desecrate the marriage rite. He was willing to concede to the religious scruples of all classes of Dissenters, but he was sure that every conscientious Dissenter would wish the mar riage ceremony to be performed in the most open manner. He was aware that there was a growing unpopularity against the religion in which the greater portion of the Members of that House were educated—( Cheers)—but he, for one, would never hold up matrimony as other than a ceremony connected with religion. Mr. WARBURTON said that the object of the Bill was to make the marriage ceremony binding on Dissenters, and not to desecrate the rite of marriage. Mr. C. FERGUSSON hoped the Noble Lord would ra ther give up the Bill altogether than agree to the clause pro posed by the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. A. TREVOR said the present Bill directly aimed at upsetting the ceremonies of the Established Church. Mr. HARDY should vote against the clause of the Right Hon. the Member for Cambridge, and in favour of the words introduced by the Noble Lord. Sir A. AGNEW hoped that the Right Hon. Member for Cambridge would not persist in the clause. Colonel THOMPSON said a few words in opposition to the clause. Sir R. PEEL said that what had passed between the Noble Lord and himself with reference to the words which the Noble Lord bad introduced into the Bill at his ( Sir Robert Peel's) suggestion had passed in the House, and the proposition which he then made was not opposed by any of his friends on the same side with him. The Noble Lord had felt . the justice of the suggestion, and had introduced it as a clause into the Bill without the slightest intimation to him ( Sir R. P.) of his intention to do so. He certainly did not make any formal propo sition of the suggestion he had thrown out, but he thought it would be likely to give great satisfaction to the Dissenters if it were adopted. His object was to leave the marriages in the Church of England as they stood at present, and, at the same time, not to interfere with the conscientious scruples of the Dis senters. He thought it very likely that if his Right Hon. Friend pressed his clause to a division, the Noble Lord would soon have an opportunity of taking the sense of his friends upon his own clause, when probably he would not meet with so shameful a defeat as he did the other night.—( Cheers, and laughter.) He thought that the marriage contract ought to be connected with religious rites, but at the same time he would not shut out the Dissenter from entering into it as a civil contract. Mr. TOWNLEY—Whatever might be the fate of the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he hoped the test in the 18th clause would be excluded, because it was most offensive to those for whose benefit the Bill was said to have been intended. He should certainly oppose that part of the clause in question. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the clause 6B Against it _ _ Majority against the clause -64 Dr. BO\VRING then moved a clause, to the effect that Jewish synagogues be considered as places of worship, and be allowed the privileges of the registry. After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN and Lord J. RUSSELL the clause was agreed to. Mr. WARBURTON moved the omission of the proviso in the 18th clause, which requires a declaration of the reli gious belief of the parties married. Mr. ESTCOURT and Sir R. INGLIS opposed the motion. Lord J. RUSSELL in deference to the opinions expressed on all sides of that House, with the exception of the Right Hon Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, was ready to withdraw the words in question.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. GOULBURN opposed the motion. The House then divided, when the numbers were— Ayes 67 Noes 108 Majority for the amendment On the re-admission of strangers, we found Sir. A. AGNE W addressing the House. The Hon. Ba ronet was understood to say that the Hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) had on a former occasion given his support to the proposition on this subject introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) who was then at the head•of the Go vernment, although he now supported the Bill of the Noble Lord. He ( Sir A. Agnew) was unable to reconc il e the course which the Hon. Member for Leeds now took with the declaration which he then made • and, to say th e l eas t o f it, the Hon. Member was chargeable with great inconsistency. Mr. BAINES admitted that he had expressed his unqua lified approbation of the Bill introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite ; but he at the same time said that he would more approve of that measure if it superadded a religious sanction to the ceremony of marriage. As far as he under stood the Bill of the Noble Lord below him, it effected the object which he had in view—it was just the kind of measure which he believed would be most satisfactory to the Dissenters, and therefore he gave it his support.--(hear, hear, and cries of " Oh, oh.") NESDAY, JUNE 2t, 1-361 Sir PEEL—This Bill is just the kind of measure that is, atjotal.variance the purse pursued by the Hon. Gen tleman la s i t yew —;.(Cllgero a. . Sir: my, Bill left.thp inattpr,, so fav, a:\ robilvi, to .tbe member!, eC ihat Ntablvfshed exactly as t found it.—( Cheers.) But it noc any other religious ceremony with respect to Dissenters than that which they themselves might think it desirable to adopt. Although I was anxious that a religious ceremony shoull exist in all cases, I felt considerable difficulty as to a hat that ceremony should be; but still the. reamble of my Bill recited that engrafting a religious Ceremony On the,rtlttrriago cOntrdtt should be encouraged as much as possible. Now, sir, that was the objection which the Hon: Gentleman who spoke in behalf of the great body of the Dissenters raised against my Bill ? Why, that did not impose that the rhafriage of Dis senters should be accompanied by a religious derernorly. Mr. PAINEA=No, tio, that was not the objection as stated it. Sir It. PE EL—i am speaking froth Memory, but as the Hon. Gentleman questions the statement which I hate made as to what fell from him on the occasion to which I refer, Will read Saint the imali which hat just been put into my hand what he really did say. The lion. Gentleman there is re ported to have said that " he wished to unite his tribute of acknowledgment to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of his Majesty's Government for the friendly spirit towards the Protestant Dissenters in which this measure was conceived, and for the clear and satisfactory manner in which he conveyed his sentiments to the House. He did not think that there would be felt against the Protestant Dissenters any objection to the Bill as far as related to constituting marriage a civil conlrac`, or to the registration of their marriages through the medium of the Magistrates ; but there might be objections to some of the details, though those, he hoped, might, without real difficulty, be removed. He was afraid there might be a jealousy created throughout the community by requiring that the marriage of some should be celebrated by a religious rati fication, whereas with others that it should be only a civil can tract. To give the greatest solemnity to marriage in all cases, he thought that some religious service ought to be engrafted upon the civil contract, and that the service should be per formed by the Minister of the religious body to whom the parties were attached."—(Cheers.) Now, did we propose that we should not go that length ? Why, all we asked was, that those who conscientiously objected to a religious cere mony should make a declaration ; and this the Hon. Gentle man deemed insufficient, because he thought the religious ce remony should be imposed in all cases by law. Mr. B AINES—No, no, I did not say by law ; I merely said that it ought to be superadded. Sir R. PEEL—The Hon. Gentleman said, " That, to give the greater solemnity to marriage, he thought that some religious service ought to be engrafted upon the civil contract, and that the service should be performed by the Minister of the religious body to whom the parties were attached ;" and if he did not mean that it should be imposed by law, what did he mean by sayinc , that " some religious service ought to be engrafted upon the civil contract?" Why, he must know that that could only be done bylaw.—(Loud cheers.) Sir, in my Bill I left the Dissenters at perfect liberty to adopt any reli gious ceremony they pleased ; and the only objection which the Hon. Member made against it was, that I had not rendered " a religious ceremony" operative, although it was evident from the terms of the preamble, that my wish was to encou rage the performance of a religious ceremony as much as pos sible.—( Cheers.) I could not have done more, unless I did so by law. As this Bill stands, it inflicts a positive injustice on the members of the Church of England. Sir, I must say that the Noble Lord opposite adopted the clause which has just been defeated of his own good will, and because he deemed it conformable to the wishes of both the members of the Church of England and the Dissenters ; but for the Noble Lord to abandon his own clause—a clause which he introduced of his own accord and without solicitation—merely because of the opposition of some Hon. Gentlemen behind him, is a pro ceeding not only without precedent, but by no means credit able to one who assumes to be the leader of the House of Commons,L( Immense cheering.) Mr. BAINES denied that there was any inconsistency in the course which he took now and the line of conduct he pur sued on the former occasion.—( Cries of " Oh, oh.") Mr. A. TREVOR rose, amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh," " Divide, divide." He only wanted to ask the Hon. Member for Leeds one question, and that was whether in sober earnest ness he thought it was inflicting no injury on the members of the Church of England—on the gentlemen of the Church of England—to enable their sons to marry clandestinely a maid servant, perhaps, by means of a civil contract such as this Bill proposed. Mr. BAINES replied that a man might marry a maid-ser vant in a church as well as by means of a civil contract.— ( Loud cries of, " Divide, divide.") Mr. HARDY had always understood that the Hon. Mem ber for Leeds was the representative of the Dissenters in that House. The Dissenters had always complained as a grievance of being obliged to have their marriages performed in the Established Church, instead of being allowed to solem nize them according to their own religious rites; and, there fore, he felt surprised to find the Hon. Gentleman standing forward as the advocate of a measure which would enable the sons and daughters of Dissenters, as well as of the mem bers of the Church of England, to leave their own places of worship and contract clandestine marriages elsewhere without any religious ceremony, or the superintendent being allowed to ask them why they came before him, and the reason they had not gone to their own places of worship.—(Hear.) Dr. BOWRING rose amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide." He must deny that his Hon. Friend the Member for Leeds represented the opinions of all the Dissenters ; on the contrary, there were large bodies of them whom he knew wished to retain their own ceremonies in the performance of marriage. The Earl of LINCOLN said that whatever boon was granted to the Dissenters by the Noble Lord's Bill, sure he was that the members of the Church of England would have nothing to thank him for.—(Hear, hear.) Looking, how ever, at the extraordinary and unprecedented conduct of the Noble Lord—conduct that was wholly unworthy of a Member of the Government, not to speak of a leader of that House— lookinc, at the Noble Lord's disgraceful desertion of the clause which he had himself introduced, and the violation of principle which the unaccountable abandonment of this clause betrayed, he (Lord Lincoln) would be wanting in his duty to the reli gion to which he belonged, if he did not move by way of amendment to the motion now before the House, that the passing of this Bill be postponed until that day six months.— (Cheers. ) Lord J. RUSSELL begged to remind the Noble Lord who had cast so much censure on his conduct of what seemed to escape his notice, or which he had altogether forgotten— namely, that the Bill was now in the same shape identically, and involved exactly the same principle, as it did when it was first introduced.—(Hear, hear.) If stress was laid upon his giving up the clause alluded to, surely it was only right that he should state the facts as they really existed. The truth, how ever, was, that the Noble Lord conceived the facts to be dif ferent from what they were, and hence it was that they had fallen into the present misapprehension. After the Bill had been introduced, and when it got into Committee, a discussion arose in which it was suggested that if a certain alteration was made in it, the objections which the members of the Church of England had to it would be obviated, and as he was anxious to conciliate all parties, although content to go on with it as it then stood, he did not hesitate to introduce a proviso which he was- led to believe would remove all objections, without in juring the efficiency of the measure. This he had done, but so far from getting rid of opposition it seemed only to increase it, and therefore, as he was disappointed in the effect which his concession was intended to produce, he did not think he was bound longer to adhere to it. The Bill was now restored to the shape in which it originally stood, and as there was no departure in it from the principle on which it was founded, he felt persuaded that the House would admit that he was fully justified in the course which he had taken.—(Hear.) Mr. E STCOURT should certainly give his vote in sup support of the amendment of his Noble Friend. The House then divided. The numbers were— For the original motion For the amendment 54 Majority The Bill was then passed. Lord EBRINGTON moved for the production of Lord Aylmer's despatches of the sth of March, 1835, addressed to the Right Hon. Edward Stanley ; and of the 18th of March, 1835, addressed to the Earl of Aberdeen. The Noble Lord said he would content himself with making his motion for the production of these papers now, and take another opportunity of bringing the subject to which they related under consi deration. Lord PALMERSTON did not mean to oppose the motion of his Noble Friend. The other Orders of the Day having been disposed of, the House adjourned at a quarter-past two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Jump 28. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. Lord HATHERTON presented a petition from Helston, Staffordshire, in favour of the Manchester and Cheshire Junc tion Railway. Sir J. BECKETT, and other Members of the House of Com mons, appeared at the Bar to request a Conference with their Lordships on the Leeds and Selby Railway Bill.—Agreed to. Messengers from the House of Commons brought up several Bills with the Lords' Amendments agreed to. Mr. Campbell, from the East India House, presented the annual returns from that Company. The Earl of ROSEBERY presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce, Edinburgh, against the Scotch Universities Bill. Lord LYNDHURST gave notice that on Thursday next he should move the second reading of the Transfer of Property Bill. The Duke of BUCCLEUGH presented a petition from Glasgow, against the Scotch Universities Bill. Also a peti tion from Ayr, and one from the schoolmasters of Kincardine, to the same effect. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. —IRELAND. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said it would be impossible for the Committee appointed by their Lordships, to draw up rea sons for disagreeing with the amendments made by the House of Commons to the Irish Municipal Bill, to have them pre pared before Thursday next, as it would not be in their power in a shorter time to place before the other House the several points upon which their Lordships relied. The Earl of HADDINGTON presented several petitions against the Scotch Universities' Bill. On the motion of the Earl of ROSEBERY leave was given to extend the time for signing the protest against the decision to which their Lordships had come last night, to five o'clock to-morrow, or the next day the House should sit. On the motion of Earl SHAFTESBURY certain Peers were named as Managers of the Conference on the part of their Lordships on the Leeds and Selby Railway Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND broughrt. ei*; Pirst Report of the Railway Committee, and moved th a t i t be it't,44ll / . 4 „1,9r4 WILLIAM said, that in his opinion a more Pot - mot , su.blect, r i r;l ) tipt bo, bought before the consideration of Partrarnei,'.: , rfte l n-O ppt ,tpe,culations in railways. Parliament had been too mucir.oi Pf.'N , osidering Rail way Bills as isolated measures. It was a subject sve'ltivy A - C the interference of the highest atthorities of the State ; but sure he was that, however much he might admire the genius Or the spoculat*.ons of individuals engaged in those great na tional works, that tinieo the? were directed by some supreme atithority, and unless care was taken, the mv7,e4lations of one set of men would be destrucive of the just tr'dveir t~mh specu lations of another.---(Hear, hear.) He was satiSfieSi titittt if they legislated c7i wand principles, they wotiiii Mc:Yeas° the Wealth of their Vosisity much greater than the wealth and property of the country had b.Ten . increased about a half a century ago by inland navigation. He cntirely con curred in the resolution contaigied M the Report which had Imen read. The Marquis of CLANIZiCARDE saii it would be im possible to lay dottir one unifirm system, to provido for all the damages that might be creittrd by any individual railroad Pill. The Duke of WELLINGTON !mid all he had done was to express a hope that the Government and the Parliament would do something to prevent monopolies and the stop page of improvements.-- Bear.) lie was aware of une place where roads were or would be necessary in a very short time, which would not be possible if a contemplated railroad were carried into executior. The Duke of RICHMOND reminded the llcuse that the Committee had reported twat they were not prepared to lay before the House any details on the whole case. Many of their Lordships were, no doubt, aware, but he believed the community at large were not, that several accidents by fire had taken place on railroads. 3,0001. of cotton goods had been destroyed on the Liverpool and Manchester railway, and and a farm house and corn-fields near Leicester and some where else. These fires might have been occasioned by neg ligence. He did not know whether the most likely way of preventing their recurrence in the rural districts would not be to make the Company pay the damage..—( Hear, hear.) This would afford the public a cheap and speedy remedy. The same system would not quite apply to crowded places like London, for no Company yet formed, not even a railway Company, could afford to pay for the rebuilding of London.— (Hear, and a laugh.) It was necessary that some arrange ment should be made, because, if the Insurance Companies found that the danger of fire was increased along a line of railroad, they would naturally raise the rates of insurance, and the consequences would thus fall, not on the proprietors; but on the whole surrounding neighbourhood. GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY. Lord KENYON said that he would move that the Grand Junction Railway Bill be now read a third time. If that motion were carried, he should move certain clauses, which the Noble Lord did not describe, by way of rider. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE had no objection to make to the motion of the Noble Lord who had spoken last. The Entails Relief (Scotland) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Waste Lands Cultivation (Ireland) Bill was also read a third time and passed. On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, The second reading of the Manchester and Cheshire Junc tion Railway Bill was postponed to Monday next. APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES. Lord WH ARN CL IF FE presented a petition from Lancas ter complaining of the appointment of mill-owners, resident in the town, as magistrates. The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that it was very desirable to refrain from appointing as magistrates persons who had an interest in direct opposition to the enforcement of the penalties they were called upon to impose. At the same time it was quite impossible to establish any general rule, in conse quence of the difficulty of obtaining other persons. UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. Petitions against certain provisions of this Bill, and pray ing for further delay, were presented by the Earl of ABER DEE N mid the Duke of WELLINGTON from different Scotch Universities. The Earl of ABERDEEN inquired whether it was the in tention of the Noble Viscount to move the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Bill that evening? Viscount MELBOURNE intimated that he intended to do so. The Earl of ABERDEEN then rose for the purpose of announcing certain amendments which it was his intention to propose. He considered the Bill as the consequence of a report made by the visitors five or six years ago, which had remained on their Lordships' table ever since. Having been a member of that Commission, and having concurred generally in the Report, it was impossible for him, as a man of consistency and honour, to object to the measure they had recommended. The principal objection originated in an error which had gone abroad. All the petitioners imagined that the Boards to be appointed by the Bill were to be the governing bodies of the Universities, whereas they were, in fact, placed under the immediate super intendence and control of an University Court, constituted ac cording to the recommendation of the Commissioners. He could not too strongly impress upon the Noble Viscount the fact that the practical effect of the measure would wholly depend the constitution of the proposed Boards. His first amendment was the insertion of the following clause :—" Provided always, and be it further enacted, that nothing in this Act contained shall be held to alter or affect the rights, privileges, control, and superintendence at present exercised, or which may law fully be continued to be exercised, by the Established Church of Scotland, her general assemblies, synods, or presbyteries, in any of the universities and colleges of Scotland." Ells next amendment was, to prevent the visitors from interfering in any of the details of university discipline or regulation, and to confine their inquiries to the distribution and ma nagement of their property and funds—regard being had to their charters, foundation, and the other means by which they acquired or held their property. The next was to limit the right of appeal to sentences of expulsion or dismis sal ; and the next, to limit the duration of the Boards to three months instead of five, as proposed by the Bill. Further amend ments might occur to other Noble Lords in a future stage of the Bill, but it was unnecessary to enter into them at that moment. One of the clauses went to deprive the professors of the right of electing to certain vacant professorships. He believed he was correct in saying that this was the only provision of the Bill which rendered an Act necessary ; for, if he were not mistaken, his Majesty could, by his Royal prero gative, carry every other recommendation of the Commis sioners into effect. This was the only point on which the Commissioners had not fully reported ; and as it was very de sirable to have their opiuion on the subject, he should propose a clause requiring the Board to state their opinion on the system of patronage pursued in the Universities of Scotland, together with their recommendations thereupon. With these amendments he would beg their Lordships to commit the Bill, pro forma, and to allow the amendments to be printed, with a view to its re-committal. Viscount MELBOURNE could not admit the justice of the Noble Lord's request. With respect to the authority pro posed to be committed to his Majesty's Ministers by the Bill, he begged leave to say, when they were told they were so likely to misuse it, that they were not anxious to have it.— ( Hear, hear.) Whose Bill was it ? It was more the Bill of the Noble Lords opposite than it was theirs ; it was a Bill founded upon the report of their own Commission, which they had repeatedly taunted the Government for not having before introduced. For his part, he would far rather not have this power; for he well knew the difficulty of exercising it. The Bishop of EXETER said that there was a great ex citement on this subject in Scotland ; only one University had petitioned in favour of the Bill ; numerous petitions had been presented against it, and private applications out of number had been made to their Lordships respecting it. He thought the Universities had a strong prima facie reason to complain of the mode in which the Bill had been introduced. The Universities and the Church of Scotland concluded that the Bill was abandoned for the present at least. Under this im pression, no reference was made to the subject in the Gene ral Assembly, which soon afterwards commenced its sittings : and it did so happen that the day on which the Bill was intro duced into that House was the very day on which the informa tion that the sittings of the General Assembly had terminated, could arrive by post in London. He had no doubt this ex traordinary conjunction of circumstances was accidental; he merely mentioned it as an ingredient in the panic which now prevailed in Scotland with reference to this subject. It was no matter of surprise that this singular resurrection of the Bill had occasioned considerable alarm. The Bill was soon after read a second time, and on the suggestion of a most Re verend Prelate near him, and a Noble Duke opposite, the com mittee was postponed until that day, to afford an opportunity for communication with the Universities. That communication had taken place, and their Lordships had seen the result. He did not see, at this late period of the session, and considering the enormous mass of important busbies before the House, that any inconvenience would ensue from postponing the Bill to another session. The Order of the Day having been read for the House going into Committee on the Bill, The Bishop of EXETER moved that the Bill be com mitted this day six months. The Earl of HAD DINGTON had heard with great satis faction the Noble Viscount state that it was not his wish or in tention to proceed with any undue haste with this Bill. He hoped that when the Commission did appear, it would be of a nature to satisfy the public mind. He felt assured that the Noble Viscount would make the appointments with perfect fairness and impartiality. He was also satisfied that the Learned Lord Advocate, who had the management of this Bill in the other House of Parliament, had no intention to do anything that could tend to injure the just influence and authority of the Church of Scotland over the national education in that country. It was, nevertheless, quite obvious that if a Board of Commissioners should be created by Parliament to su persede the authority of the professors in the Universities over that national education, it would occasion an interference with the present course of study established in Scotland, of which the Church of Scotland would have good r eason to complain ; and he never would consent to any thing that could by possibility impair the just influence of the national Church of Scotland over her national Universities. With respect to the motion of the Right Rev. Prelate, his objection to it was, might that it would stop the Bill at a stage whe n it ght receive many improvements. He would therefore su ggest to the Right Rev. Prelate the propriety of withdrawing is otion in order that the Bill might go into Committee, and be m made as perfect as possible. The Noble Viscount had said that he did not seek for this Bill—that it was not his Bill but our Bill ; that it was not introduced by the present Government. Now he (Lord Haddington) begged leave to say that " the Government never dies." It was the duty of the Secretary of State for the time being to take up the recommendation, let the administration be whatever it might, of a Commission which had been appointed under the authority of the King. it tl4erafore was the duty of the Noble Viscount to bring ward diig , weasure.. The Bishop tof EXETER, for the reasons stated by the N'obl't Earl, begged kaye to withdraw his amendment. Fluke of WELLINGTON wished to remind the Noble Vise +Ye that many of the persons who bad petitioned their Lordships upaNt I<lris subject were desirous of being heard by Counsel against its prtilisions. iii : 4 9 tint MELBOURNE was understo od to say that the usual fiii,Rlt' , 4r hearing- Counsel was before the second yeadin g, but it was ooniptlent for their. Lordships to hear Couvs.el at any time. With rekittCtt to the time of bringi n g forwara the Bill, he begged to say that the delay bad been solely oofa- sinned by his illness, which prevented him from bringing It forward. th=e Marquis of BUTE was understood to object to that part Of tqle Oilt which went to deprive the Professors of their patronage, The Marqnil BREADALBANE assured the Right Reverend Prelate that ke mistook greatly the feclino o f the rople of Scotland, if he supposeo that they • did not wish that every rA".94 existing in the Universities of Scotland should bo uprooted. After a few words from the Marquis of BREAD ALBANg mnd the Bishop of EXETER in explanation, Tn. Duke of BUCCLEUCH said that t h is was no t a question of politics nor of party. The only question before them was, how Owy could most effectually remedy the incon veniences which existed in those Universities, and remove thole abuses which might impair their efficiency. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the Bill went through the Committee, pro forma. TITHES COMMUTATION BILL. This Bill having been brought up from the Commons, on the motion of Viscount MELBOURNE, it was read a first time, and ordered to be printed. The Noble Viscount then gave notice that the second reading would be moved by his Noble Friend, the Marquis of Lansdowne, on Thursday se'nnight. CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, in moving the second reading of the Church Discipline Bill, for many years the only mode which had existed for enforcing discipline among the clergy, had been by the very feeble, expensive, and on' satisfactory proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts. Thar circumstance alone made it expedient to adopt some alters lion in the law ; but this had become still mo r e necesary, . asmuch as their Lordships had read, a second time, a Bill for the purpose of consolidating the Ecclesiastical Courts, and for taking away from the Diocesan Courts that Prig diction which they had hitherto possessed, for enforcing Church discipline. The question, then, was—What tribu nal should have jurisdiction by which discipline might be effectually enforced against individual members of the Church ? There were two ways in which that object might be attained. They might vest it altogether in the hands of the Bishop, which in former times was an authority exercised by him ; or they might establish another tribunal which should give the parties accused that security which was possessed by other members of the State, of being tried by those who were their equals in rank and profession, and who were therefore interested in the administration of justice to wards the accused. He was satisfied that their Lordships would feel, and he hoped that the Right Rev. Bench would also feel, that it was not expedient to repose the power alto gether in the hands of the bishop : because, however well it might be exercised, it was not congenial with the other estab lishments of the country to vest such power aid influence in the hands of an individual. For these reasons it had been considered that the most effectual way to enforce the due discipline of the Church, and at the same time to se cure the accused against any improper judgment being pronounced against him, would be to appoint under the superintendence of the bishop a tribunal, consisting of a cer tain number of their own body—namely, nine clergymen, and providing that no sentence should be passed unless with the concurrence of six out of the nine. He thought this would be an effectual tribunal for the redressing of offences, and one also to which the clergy could look up to with confidence - The rest of the Bill was for the purpose of carrying that olr ject into effect, and if their Lordships should approve of the principle of the Bill, which was to establish a tribunal in each diocese such as he had described, the details might be consi dered in Committee. It was further proposed to give a povie!" of appeal to the Archbishop of the Province. The Noble Oct Learned Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY hoped that thei r Lordships would agree to the second reading of the Bill, the principle of which had just been explained. This was a sub ject on which legislation was peculiarly required.—( Hear.) It was a Bill of great importance to the country, and he trusted that the Noble Lords learned in the law would lend their as sistance and abilities that it might be made such as the country required at their hands, and such as would tend to increase the efficiency of the Church and keep up the character of its nu' nisters. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday. Adjourned till Thursday. HOUSE OF LORDS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL. Division, on the motion of Lord Melbourne, " That the alnina" ments of the Commons be agreed to." NOT CONTENT. PRESENT. DUKES. Cumberland Beaufort Newcastle Wellington EARLS. Sandwich Shaftesbury St. Germain•s falbot Tankerville Vane (Marquis of Londonderry) Verulam Westmoreland Wilton Winchilsea VISCOUNTS. Beresford Combermere Exmouth Gordon Hereford Hood Maynard Sidney St. Vincent BARONS. Abinger Alvanley Ashburton Bagot Bayning Bexley Bolton Boston Braybrooke Camden Carbery Clanwilliam (Earl) Clinton Colchester Colville Cowley Delamere De Lisle De Roos De Tabley Douglas of Douglas Duirerin Dunsany Ellenborough Farnborough Fitzgerald Fitzgibbon Forrester Gage isastoris. Grantley Hay Heytesbury Kenyon Loftus Marquis of Ely) Lyndhurst Manners Maryborough Meldrum (Earl of Aboyne) Melross (Earl of Haddington) Montagu Ormonde (Marquia) Penshurst (ifs Strangford) Prudhoe Ravensworth Reay Redo&le Rodney Rolle Saltoun Sheffield (Earl) Sinclair Skelmersdale Sondes Southampton St. John of Diets° Stuart de Rothial Tenterden Thurlow Wallace Wharncliffe lot Willoughby& pro Wodehouse Wyntord aacimisnor t. Canterbury Y•rk Armagh manors. Bangor CloP e Cork, Ross, Down rnd Conalu• Exeter Gloucester Lincoln Rochester Winchester MARQUISES. Abercorn Aylesbury Bristol Bute Camden V-holmondeley Exeter Hertford Salisbury Westmeath EARLS. Abingdon Amherst A ylesford Bandon Bathurst Beauchamp Beverley Brooke and Warwick Brownlow Caledon Carnarvon Chesterfield Dartmouth De Grey Devon Digby Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch) Falmouth Glengall Hardwicke I larrowby Hillsborough Jersey Limerick Liverpool Lonsdale Mansfield Manvers Onslow Orford I'oulett I'owis Ripon Rosso Rosalyn PROXIES. EARLS. DUKES. Buckingham Dorset Leeds Marchester Northumberland Rutland sh isona• Downes Dynevor FarPhalto. 4 Fevers)la" - Forbes Gray Harris Hopetown Kerr Tss °l 4 cßwN i c ß jtt a aah r i : e i l airtin v e r t wg e glhio e t s e dsi a l :. iht:irroeateinrs;v:lentorfegooldnogher of cdoia. e llf Oxford eafisbury St. AsaPh St. David's Worcester Mayo Moreton Mount Edgcnmbe Munster O'Niel Orkney Pembruke Plymouth Selkirk Somers Stamford MARQUISES. Thomond Twecodale EARLS. Airlie Delmore Bradford Buckinghamshire Cardigan Clancarty Dclawarr Eldon Elgin Enniskillen Guilford Harrington Home Leven and Melville Lindsay Lucan Macclesfield Malmesbul'y VISCOUNT/. Arbuthnot Canterbury Doneraile Gort Lorton Melville Sidmouth BARONS. Arden Ardrossan Berners Berwick Carrington Clanbrassil Churchili CONTENT. PRESENT. EARLS. Minto Radnor Scarborough ShrewsbUll Spencer Sr radbroke Thanet VisCOntr... Duneaal l°n Falkland Leinster Melbour ne Torr ington BA RON N. Howardol Ellingharr Glenelg Daere Stourton Paget Petre Saye and Sele Teynham Howland Holland King Vernon PROXIES. EARLS. Durham Granville Craven BARONS. Dudley Arundel Dormer Pyron Ponsonby Sherborne Carleton Dorchester Auckland I.yttleton Mendip Wellesley Erskine SA ROWS. Ducie Foley Suffield Dundas Li ford Dunally Glenlyou Crewe Gardner Hill Somerhill RoscherY Sefton Chaworth _ Poltimore Segrave Templemore I,Nnorben Doyle Denman Hatherton Strafford Lan gdale c Clement s BMW ,. Bristol Chichester pit i i y ana n n ecl irc j er rd h o l it : y °39- Fingal' Rossi() _ Ludlow Belhaven Bowden Mostyn Clone urr.Y Gotiolplitu Yarborough Montfort western Norwien Lord Chancellor Argyll Cleveland Grafton Norfolk Richmond Sutherland MATIQUISE3. fteadalbane Conyngham Heau fort Lansdowne orthampton Oueensberry 'estminster EA 111. g. Albemarle Burlington Carlisle Charlemont Chichester Clarendon Errrot Fitawilham Grey L l 1 icchhetl t e e i dr DUKES. H. the Duke of Sussex Bedford Brandon Devonshire Marlborough MARQUIS. Winchester EARLS. Derby Huntingdon Suffolk Essex Oxford Ferrers Gosford Mulgrave Camperdown A child a year and a half old was recently choakea with a c h e rry stone at Berne : the maid had imprudet% given the child some cherries to eat she has run away , s'n nas not been heard of since, The father of the child is Prod fessor Perti,